D&D 5E Math v Character

[Bluenose]

I hope I am wrong but it sounds like you're saying that, if my character concept says my character would wear leather armor but the rules say that studded leather or chain is 'better', I should change my character's concept or change systems.

Cosmetic appearance details don't seem like the most relevant part of a character concept. When a writer is told Show, Don't Tell that's not a suggestion that you must describe the appearance of a character. It's a suggestion that what the character is like becomes most apparent through their actions rather than what the say. Viz, the self-described "fearless" character who always backs down from fights and/or runs away. I tend to feel that the same thing applies to RPGs, and on that basis I make characters by deciding what I want them to be able to do competently and then picking the class/talent/whatever-the-system-uses to make a character that can do that. If I can't make that concept in a way that doesn't rely on luck for it to work out, I come up with a different concept - or a different game.

 

[Ratskinner]

This is a conflict of play style priorities with the system (or can be). D&D has always had a bit of split personality this way, AFAICT. So if you want the mechanics to reflect something "real" about the gameworld, then their will certainly be optimal paths for character development in your system. If you would rather have either balance around the table WRT "winning" or have mechanics that function on a story level, then this isn't necessarily so.

The Fate system, for example, does not (broadly speaking) have characters that are strictly better than another. However, the mechanics do respond to differences in their narrative positioning or makeup. So the lithe swashbuckler can stand equally beside the heavy tank. (Adding an extra to Fate to make something fiction differently is easy and common, though.)

 

[Nagol]

It's an RPG. Playing against expectations and conventions is a thing. This is how the dwarf wizard first came about.



In my experience, that's total bunk. Char op can be fun, but I think most people don't do it. There are far better games for optimization that a role playing game - like magic the gathering. An RPG is not a natural classification for optimization. It can be done, but it's not a primary function of the game. Role playing is what differentiates an RPG from other types of games, it's what it does best, and char op isn't really related to it (not that it cannot be role played, just that optimization is neither here nor there when it comes to role playing - it's not related to that function). So as long as the character can be role played well, that's what the system handles best. Math isn't much of a concern for the system really - it's much more a concern for certain players rather than the system itself. Even a mediocre DM can handle a non-optimized party just fine. It's actually a bit harder to DM for a fully optimized party in my experience, than it is for a non-optimized one, as one of the three pillars (or more) gets thrown off.

Playing against expectation//convention works so long as the game system supports it. You as a player are consuming finite space at the table. Don't bring in something that will substantially undercut the other players by reducing their effectiveness and/or make the GM miserable. In other words, going against expectation takes more min/maxing (minimising the sacrifice, maximising the usefulness) because you as a player have chosen a sub-optimal starting point.

Who's talking char-op? I'm talking char-dis-op.

If you want to go against expectation, the onus falls on you to understand the system well enough to know what sacrifices you are making and what sacrifice/risk this will cause the rest of the table. So you should take some time to understand the math so you aren't the Richard at the table.

I've had a player bring characters into a superhero game without an attack power (CHAMPIONS -- character's best attack was STR 10 punch/kick (same as a normal human for those that haven't seen the system).
I've had a player bring a deaf-mute killing machine into a game billed as intrigue/high-fantasy exploration adventure.
I've had a player exclaim "Neat! My DRT is lower than my off-hand dexterity" in an Aftermath character building session (DRT is the equivalent of hp and is typically 3-4 times the off-hand dex for those that haven't seen the system).
I've had a player struggle with a fancy-fop of a fighter that refused to wear armour of any type -- at first level. Well not the whole level, just for an encounter or two. Then I had to tell the player to roll a new one because that one was dead. Unfortunately, I had to make the same statement to 2 other players who wouldn't have lost characters in all likelihood if the first had been pulling his weight.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Gotta agree with Nagol here, I'm afraid.

You choose what PC you make. If you choose to be highly ineffective in a GAME where you expected to contribute, or to give the PC a personality or alignment that means he can't "Play Nice" with them, that's on you.

If you habitually build PCs who are genuinely ineffective/anti-optimized, for whatever reason, you probably don't want to be there, or really enjoy the game, even if you don't consciously know that (unless most/all of the group does the same).

Also your "but un-optimized is easier!", well, it's a continuum. Super-optimized can require a DM seriously "up his game". In 3E it was a nightmare. In 4E a breeze. In 2E it was okay. Really un-optimized is just as bad, though. In 3E it was a pain. 4E more of a pain than super-optimized (because it's less predictable). 2E meant you couldn't use pre-written adventures, but otherwise...

 

[Umbran]

The math matters... somewhat.

I personally don't usually spend a lot of effort on optimization. I can do it, but it isn't actually all that much fun, for me, to sit alone playing with numbers and reading threads on optimization to learn new tricks that others have found. On the other hand, I don't run contrary to the basic ethos of a game, either - if I know there's going to be a lot of combat, I don't make a character who is a pacifist, or absolutely inept in combat situations.

I'll give an example from a Star Wars Saga Edition game I played in a little while ago. The premise was that all characters would be young Jedi. One player decided to eschew Force use, and go all Mandalorian combat monster. Two others went with standard Jedi combat builds. One player went the social skill route with lots of force powers - basically a Jedi Sorceress.

Then there was me. I looked at that spread. We had four characters who were really hot in combat. And one who could also handle our social interactions. But none of them... were terribly bright. They had the high strength, con, dex, and charisma. But there wasn't an intelligence or Wisdom above 12 among them.

So, I used my Charisma and Strength as (relative) dump stats. I took a decent Con so I'd have hit points to spare, and then went strongly for Int/Wis skills. I was the Smart Guy (and the one with the spaceship). Not mechanically optimized at all. I was many levels before I got a Force Power I could use well enough to be really effective in combat next to the bruisers. But, whenever there was something that needed to be done in a fight *other* than killing the bad guys, I was the go-to for it. And I wound up in the party leadership role, because I was always the one with the best plan.

So, mechanical optimization's not required. But some basic effectiveness, and a role in the party *is* kind of required. And, edge cases of rogues who screw up being able to make sneak attacks, d20 variants are usually pretty good at guiding you to that basic effectiveness. Pick a class, and go with it, and you'll basically be okay.

Now, I also think that the player actively trying to pick a character so flawed that it is doomed to fail is a bit of a boogeyman. Very few players are out there to actively run against the system so hard that they wane into uselessness. However, if the GM is allowing Optimized characters next to the un-optimized, it takes some careful thought as to how you are gong to run your adventures to make them fit together. You can't just toss them both into a dungeon crawl and expect good results.

So, you should pick your character with your party and game system in mind, and the GM should (IMHO) run the game with the player's intentions in mind, and everything will usually work out fun.

 

[Evenglare]

Also a little musing about min max exploit characters.... I always thought that char op tabletop games is quite amusing. While optimizing a character in a video game can be overpowered it's because the game doesn't usually change. Everything is as it is. But in tabletop games you can char-op as much as you want but I guarantee you that I (as a DM) can throw something at you that makes you feel as useless as an unoptimized character. And if I have players that do blatantly optimize a character, I will exploit the hell out of the weakness they have. Even if an optimized character makes everyone else in the party feel like crap, there are ways of evening that out. Big Dragon comes around? He's going to focus on the greatest threat, the min/maxed twinked character. It's just... it's just funny to me because as much as people focus on optimized characters, in the long run, it means nothing in a tabletop game. There's always a bigger fish.

Now that being said, my method of rolling up characters (pick race, rolls 2 sets of stats with 3d6, pick a set, apply in order, pick class) completely reins in any sort of nonsense that a character might have. Also it makes a character with a high stat truly special.

 

[Umbran]

Doesn't this imply that D&D isn't able to handle players who want to buck the system?

Does your car handle things particularly well if you try to drive it into a tree?

No system "handles" players that actively try to buck it. The system is not an intelligent thing that can adjust - it is a static set of rules. Just as one can optimize for extreme high performance, one can also choose to aim for extremely low performance.

I'd argue instead it has little to do with the system, and 95% to do with the adventures.

Let us not make up statistics. There are many influences - the players, the GM, the adventure and encounter designs. All play roles in the drama that can unfold.

 

[Nagol]

Also a little musing about min max exploit characters.... I always thought that char op tabletop games is quite amusing. While optimizing a character in a video game can be overpowered it's because the game doesn't usually change. Everything is as it is. But in tabletop games you can char-op as much as you want but I guarantee you that I (as a DM) can throw something at you that makes you feel as useless as an unoptimized character. And if I have players that do blatantly optimize a character, I will exploit the hell out of the weakness they have. Even if an optimized character makes everyone else in the party feel like crap, there are ways of evening that out. Big Dragon comes around? He's going to focus on the greatest threat, the min/maxed twinked character. It's just... it's just funny to me because as much as people focus on optimized characters, in the long run, it means nothing in a tabletop game. There's always a bigger fish.

Now that being said, my method of rolling up characters (pick race, rolls 2 sets of stats with 3d6, pick a set, apply in order, pick class) completely reins in any sort of nonsense that a character might have. Also it makes a character with a high stat truly special.

I usually optimise to eliminate as much as possible something I don't want to occur in the game. For example, I created a thief in Fantasy Hero with a stupendous ability to pick locks because I didn't want lockpicking to matter.

The GM thought that since I bought such a high skill, I must really want to exercise and 'shine' in it so suddenly the world had really really really really good locks everywhere and I had a substantial failure chance again.

 

[Evenglare]

I usually optimise to eliminate as much as possible something I don't want to occur in the game. For example, I created a thief in Fantasy Hero with a stupendous ability to pick locks because I didn't want lockpicking to matter.

The GM thought that since I bought such a high skill, I must really want to exercise and 'shine' in it so suddenly the world had really really really really good locks everywhere and I had a substantial failure chance again.

Yeah, I try not to do something THAT bad in games. I mean if a character can lockpick really really well and that's the high point of the character then sure, he can pick most locks. But if he can't get hit, always succeeds in picking locks, never gets seen, does ungodly amounts of damage, etc etc. Then that's the time to start exploiting weaknesses. And even then, that's if hes just outshining everyone else. If everyone is that powerful, then it's not a big deal because you will just be doing more extreme stuff and everyone is on par again.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Now, I also think that the player actively trying to pick a character so flawed that it is doomed to fail is a bit of a boogeyman. Very few players are out there to actively run against the system so hard that they wane into uselessness.

Strongly agree with your post generally, but IME these guys do happen, it's just not usually their normal/typical behaviour. Every one I've seen (including the one I was in Castle Falkenstien, in retrospect!) was basically not having fun/not "into" the system/setting, and effectively "acting out" as a result. Same guy, different game, no useless/troublesome PC.

I usually optimise to eliminate as much as possible something I don't want to occur in the game. For example, I created a thief in Fantasy Hero with a stupendous ability to pick locks because I didn't want lockpicking to matter.

The GM thought that since I bought such a high skill, I must really want to exercise and 'shine' in it so suddenly the world had really really really really good locks everywhere and I had a substantial failure chance again.

Hopefully the DM learned from this! I had to learn a similar lesson in the dawn of 4E with a PC with ultra-high Perception. Her player just really didn't like missing stuff or getting surprised, and initially I thought "Oho, time for high DCs to 'challenge' her", but I wasn't getting it. It was a good lesson to learn.